Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SoothingDave
Are you arguing the letter of the law or the spirit of football?

The letter of the law. I've said that several times. I'm not sure it's "fair" either to award a safety to the defending team. Maybe if someone had thought about this, they would return the ball to the spot where the fumble occurred.

ML/NJ

59 posted on 01/08/2007 10:00:31 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: ml/nj
The letter of the law.

We can't do that without a fuller understanding what the NFL means by "impetus." It's not the same thing as physics class where a change in momentum means the object changes speed and/or direction.

A blocked punt changes speed and direction, but the NFL does not consider the punt blocker to have provided "impetus" to the ball.

By analogy, a defender who punches the ball out of a player's arm does not provide "impetus" to it either. That would be my understanding of the NFL rule and this is how the rule was applied on Saturday. I trust the NFL to know its rules.

Surely if Dallas thought the rule was applied wrongly there would be someone other than you asking this question.

I'm not sure it's "fair" either to award a safety to the defending team.

Fumbled balls are downed at the point where they go out of bounds. That's the rule. It is applied the same way in the end zone. But being "down" in the end zone means a safety.

It's logically consistent, and I see nothing unfair in having consequences to screwing up around your own goal line. What you suggest is either two sets of rules: where a ball fumbled from the 10 yard line back to the 1 is spotted at the one, while a ball fumbled from the 9 yard line back to the goal line is spotted at the 9.

Or a general change whereby any backwards fumble is spotted at the point from which it was fumbled. That is, fumbles carry no penalty as long as the fumbling team recovers.

Either way, it seems an attempt to minimize the offensive team's risks and insulate them from their own poor ball-handling.

62 posted on 01/08/2007 10:11:08 AM PST by SoothingDave (Are you on the list?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

To: ml/nj
Maybe if someone had thought about this, they would return the ball to the spot where the fumble occurred.

They would do this only if they ruled an illegal "batting" of the ball. If the movement of the ball is incidental to the attempt to recover it, then it's not "batting" and the ball is spotted where it goes out of bounds (unless the only player to touch it was the fumbler and the ball went forward, then it is returned to the spot of the fumble).

71 posted on 01/08/2007 11:10:14 AM PST by kevkrom (WARNING: The above post may contain sarcasm... if unsure, please remember to use all precautions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson